Strike to End War? What Will It Take?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

What Single Group Would Have to Strike to Enable an End to War?

Poll ended at Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:30 pm

No number of striking people can stop the Military Industrial Complex
2
13%
Teachers
0
No votes
Librarians
0
No votes
Police
0
No votes
Fire Department
0
No votes
Truckers
2
13%
Farmers
0
No votes
Taxi Drivers
1
6%
Military Personnel
11
69%
Politicians
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 16

Strike to End War? What Will It Take?

Postby elfismiles » Mon May 12, 2008 7:30 pm

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you cant take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

- Mario Savio


Mario Savio: Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw


This past week I attended a lengthy conference for my day job. A lot of the event involved lamenting the budget cuts our national program has endured (National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped under the Library of Congress); in fact, though Congress did not approve the full amount needed at this critical juncture in the program's history, it was the REPUBLICANS (shock!) who approved more money for the program than the Democrats.

Someone amongst these librarians made the comment that one day's expenses for Iraq would cover our program for years.

During the conference a thought kept popping into my head:

"What Level of Strike Could Enable an End to War?"

I know this is a naive idea but as I was sitting in this room full of librarians I began to wonder ... how long would it take for Government to react (one way or the other / ending war or ending civil disobedience) if the Nation's (or the World's) Libraries shut down? What about if schools shut down with Teacher strikes? What about if Truckers strike?

I kow I'm not the first person to think of this but ... can't it work? Is it just a matter of NUMBERS? I know the economy is in the toilet and there will be unemployed folks willing to cross the picket line and work but ...

- smiles
Last edited by elfismiles on Mon May 12, 2008 7:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby elfismiles » Mon May 12, 2008 7:32 pm

Duh! I forgot you can't enable a multiple choice response.

Oh well.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby elfismiles » Mon May 12, 2008 7:46 pm

Well, I went with the most logical answer: Military Personnel.

But I think you all get my point.

I'd still like to hear from y'all.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 12, 2008 8:31 pm

The military really is the only logical choice among the ones listed and there is some precedence for just that. Politicians as a choice got a chuckle out of me.

I suppose a consumer strike might have some real effect as well.

It never ceases to amaze me that so few can control so thoroughly so many. If the many ever recognized their common cause the few would have no chance and the few know it. Fuck em. This frickin madness can't go on forever.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Mon May 12, 2008 8:35 pm

User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 12, 2008 9:17 pm

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Of course.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon May 12, 2008 9:21 pm

CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tKl » Mon May 12, 2008 11:32 pm

Ha, yeah! Lysistrata!

(Fuckin feminism!)

I voted truckers. Isn't a military strike usually a coup?

A peace strike might work, but do you really think an American that deeply invested in the military culture is willing to put the guns down? Maybe after their contractual obligation, when they've seen it all.
Last edited by tKl on Tue May 13, 2008 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"He needs less and more blankets!"

-Walk Hard
tKl
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:55 pm
Location: A big time lag called "now."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 13, 2008 2:08 am

.

Historical precedent: US operations in Vietnam were halted by widespread military revolts, not a strike per se but certainly influenced by antiwar calls for a strike. Starting in 1969 GIs refused to take the field and killed hundreds of their own officers when ordered to do so.

I doubt this is going to happen in Iraq. Volunteer army, a quarter of the personnel are mercenaries, the propganda is probably more effective, social control over the soldiers much tighter, much lower casualty rate (until now).

I do not expect any strike or domestic protest to end the US occupation of Iraq. More likely it will happen because of military defeat. An attack on Iran might lead to a devastating uprising against the US invaders in Iraq. Domestic protest would come after that, as would bankruptcy and the probable economic and ecological collapse of the US.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Skunkboy » Tue May 13, 2008 4:04 am

It might come to the GI's saying, "F**k this" Especially if we get into a wider war with Iran. Here's a piece by Russ Wellen from the Smirking Chimp that causes the blood to freeze in my veins.



Attack Iran? Why Not Just Paint Targets on the Backs of Kids Like Those on PBS's "Carrier"?
Afghanistan | Bush Administration | Foreign Policy | Iran | War
by Russ Wellen | May 12, 2008 - 8:02am

article tools: email | print | read more Russ Wellen

After the National Intelligence Estimate last November which reported that Iran had no nuclear program since 2003, many of us breathed a sigh of relief. It was official: When it came to attacking Iran, the administration hadn't a leg to stand on.

But, as with Iraq, it was used to that. Once anointed lame duck, it didn't skip a beat and continued to stumble forward.

In a recent post at his blog "Early Warning," Washington Post security analyst William Arkin writes: "Those predicting war with Iran or some Bush-Cheney October surprise attack on Tehran are constantly looking for signs of military preparations." He cites the unauthorized transfer of nuclear warheads from Minot to Barksdale Air Force bases, extra aircraft carriers sent to the Persian Gulf, and the B-1 that crashed in Qatar last month.

Then Arkin recalls a secret mission conducted last August over Afghanistan. He claims it "tells us everything we need to know about the ability of the U.S. military to conduct a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack in Iran."

It seems that four F-16CJ fighters completed a mission that won the prestigious Mackay Trophy for the "most meritorious" Air Force fight of the year. They flew from Iraq to Eastern Afghanistan, where they dropping more than a dozen "precision-guided" bombs on Taliban targets. It "was the equivalent of flying from New York to Los Angeles and back," Arkin explains.

In other words, like a 10-K runner logging a hundred miles a week, they might have been training for a strike on Iran, which is just the next country over from Iraq.

Meanwhile, on May 2, Andrew Cockburn (author of a new book, "Muqtada," called "required reading" in the New York Times Sunday Book Review today) reported on Counterpunch that, six weeks before, President Bush signed a secret directive authorizing a covert offensive against Iran.

Supposedly, it surpasses in scope anything attempted before. Assuming, that is, that you don't count the CIA's work to destabilize Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh's, in 1953.

The directive, Cockburn writes, funds (to the tune of $300 million), "actions across a huge geographic area –- from Lebanon to Afghanistan -– but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted. . . including the assassination of targeted officials." Presumably by the terrorist MEK, the Iranian anti-Islamic Republic group that, despite its designation as a terrorist group by the State Department, we're only too glad to make use of.

But, on his blog, Pen and Sword, outspoken Military.com columnist Ken Huber calls Cockburn's Counterpunch piece "counterproductive." "Cockburn seems to want us to get excited that this Lebanon-to-Afghanistan offensive may involve assassination," he writes. But "we're already assassinating people in Somalia with freaking cruise missiles. We're doing the same thing in Pakistan with Hellfire missiles fired from pilotless spy planes; the folks who pickle off the missiles are dweebs sitting at consoles in an Air Force base in Nevada."

Pickle off, indeed. Huber concludes: "The door to this barn has been open for a long, long time. That the horses are gone shouldn't be news to anybody."

However, the threat has since been kicked into a higher gear by respected security analyst Philip Giraldi, who was a former CIA officer and is now foreign policy advisor to the Ron Paul campaign.

In his latest blog at the American Conservative, "War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think," he writes: "There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp [near Tehran] that is believed to be training Iraqi militants."

"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates," he adds, "was the only senior official urging delay. . . . [The decision] is the direct result of concerns [over] the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces."

After contacting Iran and reading them the riot act, the White House decided that "some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles." Unambiguous, thy name is cruise missile. Of course, President Bush "will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made."

PBS has been running a series titled Carrier, about life aboard the USS Nimitz. Imagine Iran retaliating to an air strike by blowing a mega-tub like this, along with its crew of over 5,000 mostly young people, out of the water? Iran's state-of-the-art Shahab-3 missiles are able to reach parts of the Arabian Sea and even the Mediterranean.

In other words, not only is the Persian Gulf, but total war, a hop, skip and a jump away.
_______



Russ Wellen is an editor at Freezerbox and OpEdNews. He guest-blogs at AlterNet and is a staff blogger at Scholars & Rogues. He frequently writes about national security, nuclear deproliferation and the enduring enigma that is the American mind.


About author
Russ Wellen is on the staff of Freezerbox, OpEdNews and Scholars and Rogues.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/14569

I know there have been many other "we're going to war with Iran" stories
lately but as I see it, it's the only way out for the Neocons. People are getting savvy. The Repubs are going down in flames in the next election, and what better way to hold on to power but to expand the war... big time. I think the elections are just Kabuki theater for the masses and the race has been fixed ever since Nov. 22, 1963. It will take a massive stand down by our armed forces in order to stop this shit...something that my heart tells me just ain't going to happen.

Skunkboy

I'm all lost in the supermarket...
-The Clash
User avatar
Skunkboy
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: The High Lonesome
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yathrib » Tue May 13, 2008 10:16 am

I voted for truckers, but on mauling it over, military personnel are the obvious choice. Truckers carry everything of course, and if there was nothing available in stores for any amount of money, it might have some effect. But the social disruption and chaos would not be worth it. On the other hand, I would love to see the chicken hawks and the double y chromosome types try to cast truckers as the Jane Fondas of the 21st century!
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Tue May 13, 2008 12:01 pm

I'm sure it would take more than one profession but if only these few could put their money where their mouths are it would be a start..

UK trade unions opposed to the war

AMICUS/MSF Manufacturing, Science and Finance section of AMICUS www.msf.org.uk
ASLEF Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen www.aslef.org.uk
CWU Communications Workers Union www.cwu.org.uk
FBU Fire Brigades Union www.fbu.org.uk
GMB www.gmb.org.uk
NAPO National Association of Probation Officers www.napo.org.uk
NATFHE National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education www.natfhe.org.uk
NUJ National Union of Journalists www.nuj.org.uk
NUM National Union of Mineworkers
PCS Public and Commercial Services Union www.pcs.org.uk
RMT National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers www.rmt.org.uk
TSSA Transport Salaried Staffs' Association www.tssa.org.uk
UNISON www.unison.org.uk

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/links.asp


I'd suggest a rapidly escalating one day per month to get the ball rolling..

But if the workers haven't yet noticed that it's no mistake the economy is in the gutter while they lose their jobs, homes, daughters and sons to perpetual wars then they never will.

Still, we try..
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby NeonLX » Tue May 13, 2008 12:09 pm

I think the only way to get Americans to rise up en masse is to somehow discontinue teevee transmission. I can't imagine anything else that could whip them into an angry hornets nest like the sudden termination of their teevee programs.
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby tKl » Tue May 13, 2008 12:15 pm

Maybe we can get the "American Idols" to strike... yeah - I'll follow Clay Aiken anywhere.
"He needs less and more blankets!"

-Walk Hard
tKl
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:55 pm
Location: A big time lag called "now."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Tue May 13, 2008 12:19 pm

NeonLX wrote:I think the only way to get Americans to rise up en masse is to somehow discontinue teevee transmission. I can't imagine anything else that could whip them into an angry hornets nest like the sudden termination of their teevee programs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5tldEQg6is

"Come on now, just pick up a goddamn football and play! I've got nothing left in my life.... and I've got all these snacks..."
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests